The Enormous Carbon Footprint Of Protecting Pandas

[glenn1]

So let me get this straight - environmentalists want me to feel bad if I drive a car, use incandescent light bulbs, or don't recycle. But then it's fine to fly a jumbo jet with 2 only freaking pandas on it halfway across the world?


http://blogs.investors.com/capitalh...normous-carbon-footprint-of-protecting-pandas

 

[Capt Caveman]

To help prevent the extinction of the species, I don't have a problem. It's not like it's done regularly and making the trip as fast as possible is probably being done for their safety.

 

[dammitgibs]

Meh this is the least of my concerns, there are so many more hypocritical "carbon footprints" like the Copenhagen summit itself, and al gore's house

 

[Cheeseplug]

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

 

[Jiggz]

To help prevent the extinction of the species, I don't have a problem. It's not like it's done regularly and making the trip as fast as possible is probably being done for their safety.

Al Gore on the brink of extinction? Give me a break. He did flew on a jet by himself to receive the Nobel Prize, didn't he?

 

[Bitek]

Fuck em. An animal too stupid to screw to save its species deserves to die.





[/tylerdurden]

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why are we saving this animal? Unless it tastes great grilled medium-rare, I don't really give a shit about it.

 

[Amused]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

Swing and a miss!!!

It's called pointing out hypocrisy, not a diversion, since people who know AGW is a scam have no reason to divert attention away from their own "carbon footprints."

 

[StageLeft]

Swing and a miss!!!

It's called pointing out hypocrisy, not a diversion, since people who know AGW is a scam have no reason to divert attention away from their own "carbon footprints."

Yes it ignores psychology. If I am supposed to trust in your opinion of something but you don't even believe it yourself (e.g. Al Gore) then I can quite rightfully assume there is something you're hiding that, if you were candid about, would lead me to a more accurate conclusion. This is why "Do what I say not what I do" is understood as an unacceptable hypocrisy even by children. They know there is something wrong with it.

 

[Hacp]

Why are we saving this animal? Unless it tastes great grilled medium-rare, I don't really give a shit about it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted to make us look greener, but these pandas get a free ride.

 

[Slick5150]

Why are we saving this animal? Unless it tastes great grilled medium-rare, I don't really give a shit about it.

So putting an animal on the brink of extinction by overdeveloping it's habitat is ok, but trying to breed them is not. Got it.

 

[Infohawk]

Wow. Even from a selfish perspective, it would seem we want Pandas around because they are interesting animals. Sure we could live in a world solely of wheat, bacteria and humans but that would not be very fun would it?

 

[Hacp]

So putting an animal on the brink of extinction by overdeveloping it's habitat is ok, but trying to breed them is not. Got it.

Animals go extinct ALL the time. More animals have gone extinct than the ones that have made it.

 

[Amused]

So putting an animal on the brink of extinction by overdeveloping it's habitat is ok, but trying to breed them is not. Got it.

Such crap. Pandas would be on the brink of extinction if humans had never even existed. They ended up FAR too limited on diet and where that diet in located. They also became terrible at reproducing.

 

[monovillage]

An interesting article about species extinction.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/

 

[Robor]

Why are we saving this animal? Unless it tastes great grilled medium-rare, I don't really give a shit about it.

Idiot.

 

[ayabe]

Considering Pandas have been around for around 600,000 years compared to about 200,000 for us, I'd say they were doing just fine before us so there's no reason to believe they would just die out on their own.

Rapid loss of habitat will always overcome/outpace evolution.

 

[Robor]

Considering Pandas have been around for around 600,000 years compared to about 200,000 for us, I'd say they were doing just fine before us so there's no reason to believe they would just die out on their own.

Rapid loss of habitat will always overcome/outpace evolution.

Exactly. Add in gorillas, tigers, polar bears, etc. To think man isn't affecting the rate of extinction is ignorance and/or stupidity.